Sunday, November 8, 2009

I find myself at a rare loss for words, simply because I cannot say with my usual certainty what exactly is happening in this comic. Ordinarily I turn to the forums and to your comments for help, but there isn't a consensus here. Is the man inspiring the girl to donate her organs, because once they are "done" being used by her body, they are like lone lego pieces that can be used for other projects (/bodies) ? That was how I first interpreted it. Or is she irritated by his philosophical elitism, and thus driven to make him an organ donor, using his own logic? Or, is she changing her organ donor card from "donor" to "non-donor," because the Lecture convinced her that she will lose all her individuality if even a small piece of her is removed? Or maybe she is changing his card from one to the other. I'm not sure you can make a persuasive case for any of them.

That's because so little context is given. Presumably, randall has an idea about which person's organs are being donated or not. But he doesn't tell us, at least not clearly. He could have shown the whole driver's license, including a picture, so we know if it's the girl or the boy. He could have shown us a little more of a reaction from the girl instead of "blank stare," so we could know if she is generally agreeing with the man or disagreeing. I personally think the first interpretation I listed is correct (which makes the comic only slightly funny, in a sort of profound life-explained-through-toys sort of way) but I really don't know.

So I won't say any more, and maybe the next comic will be simpler.

Prediction: At least one cuddlefish will write a long rant about how dumb i am because obviously this comic is X Interpretation, and I am worthless scum etc and this shows how unqualified I am to write this blog and therefore xkcd is great, but before I get a chance to respond, another cuddlefish will write the exact same post but says it is obviously the exact opposite interpretation.

=======In Other News: I have just learned of a most extraordinary coincidence. Google Analytics informs me that on September 2nd, 2009, the day of the infamous Comic 631, the number of people who visited my blog after googling "xkcd sucks" jumped up to 631. how can it be??

No, he's not trying to make a joke, but he IS trying to be thought-provoking and original by simply applying the Ship of Theseus paradox in a conversation about LEGOs.

Ship of Theseus is basic philosophy stuff. I have never even taken a philosophy course and I could see what he was doing. Douglas Adams has an awesome, insightful anecdote about Ship of Theseus, which he wrote down in his book "Last Chance to See"...in 1990. That's almost 20 years ago. His analysis of (and reaction to) confronting the paradox in real life is brilliant, well-formed, and (best of all) not preachy and up-it's-own-ass like...well, pretty much every "serious" comic Randall Munroe has ever made.

So you're both right - it's not a funny comic. It's just not an original or thought-provoking comic, either. It's pedantic bullshit, and you should feel bad for even considering thinking about possibly liking it or even acknowledging it as something that is not shit for even one tiny freaking split-fucking-microsecond.

(Sidenote: I know some cuddlefish might bring up the argument, "Well, Douglas Adams is a professional writer and it's unfair to compare Randall Munroe to Douglas Adams." No. They're both professional writers - Randall makes his living off xkcd (and if you try to claim that Randall also has to worry about "art", I sincerely believe Douglas Adams could draw stick figures just as well as Randall). The fact that one is shitty and the other isn't doesn't mean I can't say that the one that isn't shitty did a better job.)

I agree, nothing new here with respect to Ship of Theseus. However, I do think its a moderately neat to connect it to organ donation. Maybe not horribly original, but still, neat.

I'm not trying to argue that this is a great comic, but I don't think its as horrible as your making it sound.

@Carl

I don't think any interpretation other than your first makes sense. At the end, box is checked, so either she is checking hers or his. And, it seems unlikely that she would check someone else's driver's licence, so it must be hers. Finally, she seems to have gained some insight from the conversation where before she thought that even when the pieces are taken apart, the whole still exists and now she "realizes" (in quotes because this is something people disagree on) that this is not true, whereas the guy clearly believed this to begin with.

Confused the hell out of me. Is it an affirmative or negative? Is it a 'funny' (I can barely force myself to type the word) way of referencing the tick-vs-cross form filling debate? What sort of lame **** would waste their time with such a debate?

At the very least, showing the blank form in panel 5 and then a ticked (or crossed) form in panel 6 would result in a comic that made sense, and might even be a mildly amusing of the Theseus paradox (oh The P you are so clever I want to fawn over you in admiration) to organ donation.

I don't know about other places, but the "She's checking him off as an organ donor" thing doesn't even make sense...it's not an empty box to check on a license (at least not in VA), organ donors here have a red heart and "Organ donor" beside it, and non-donors don't.

And I don't think she could fill out a form in his place at the DMV. If that's even where she is. God, I know he's not an artist but would it kill him to give at least a little hint as to where the hell she is and what the hell she's doing?

I think the fact that even the fans on the forum can't figure out the comic proves how shitty it is.

Oh yeah, and I've been lurking here for a while. I thought I was the only one who felt xkcd was past its prime, so this site took me by surprise. Can't for the life of me remember how I found it though.

10:20 Anon: The problem is the whole 'what defines a human?' thing has been done before. Especially in cyberpunk, sci-fi, and transhumanist stories: people who augment themselves cybernetically are often portrayed as being less human, either in fact or in perception. Especially popular is the idea of the brain-in-a-jar, or even replacing the human brain with a cybernetic brain. Is it still the same brain?

Organ donation is pretty much a philosophical non-issue. Those who are inclined to care about it will do so for religious reasons, and will not agree with Stickman's argument that 'you are just gone when you die, you don't go anywhere.' Indeed, that argument only works on atheists, who pretty much already believe in that particular point.

Latest comic: never say "the moment" or "instant" around a phsyicist because they're pedantic assholes? (Femaletoth, you're on the money tonight)

I once linked this blog to some folks who accused me this was a "textbook case of trying too hard." I want to link them Monday's comic in rebuttal. Is this what happens when you say "joke" in front of Randall> I mean goddamn, it doesn't even pay lip service to its geek niche this time, it's just annoying.

Time for me to be EVEN MORE PEDANTIC THAN RANDALL'S FICTIONAL PHYSICIST: I think that "instantaneous" would probably be used instead of "instant" in panels three and four. However, Randall probably used "instant" for the sake of panel composition.

Honestly the thing that bugs me is that the physicist replies as if the guy used the word "instant" and he didn't and Christ Randall it would've been SO EASY to write it that way.

Hugo, you've got it wrong. Empathy would be if he'd actually lost a brother and thus felt similar to how Guy 1 felt. Sympathy is when he simply can imagine what it would be like to lose a brother. If you're going to just throw something out there, at least make sure it's the right thing.

I thought she is changing her organ donor card from "donor" to "non-donor," because the Lecture convinced her that she will lose all her individuality if even a small piece of her is removed because it looks like a tick has been changed to a cross but now on reading this I'm not sure.

I really liked the new one. This is one of the best of XKCD. You know, the one for which Carl has yet to post criticism for. I know that physicist jokes are a major no-no, but it's just too good.In summary, LOOK AT IT! LOOK AT IT!

I agree with Anon 3:15. I can see how your first analysis would make sense, but that line extending out of the box just makes me think it used to be a checkmark and now is an X. ...But would that really make any difference? Wouldn't it still be marked as a yes, or does it work differently for organ donor cards?

You guys, we're all looking at it wrong. This is about the unreliability of words to communicate. What is a "lego" or a "house?" What does it have to do with "organ donors?" NOTHING. Don't you get it? That's the point! We just happened to contrive a stupid reason to connect the two. Words are meaningless!

And it goes even further. Symbols are meaningless! Even something as simple as the humble checkbox communicates nothing, NOTHING. It still relies on those treacherous words! It betrays us all in the end! Is she donating her organs? Or canceling her organ donation? WHO KNOWS THIS WHOLE COMIC IS ABOUT BEING WACKY AND NONSENSICAL

I sort of enjoyed the new strip, but I'm fully aware it's more of the same beating on a dead horse "ha-ha-scientists-being-quirky" unimaginative bullshit, just done a little differently. But there isn't anything immediately awful in the execution. It's a bit enjoyable, but forgettable.

I assumed that she was checking the guy's driver's license. I think this is a reasonable assumption because generally speaking, people who are old enough to have driver's licenses aren't playing with Legos. Thus, she probably has no license to check.

wait a minute, if she checked/flourished outside of the box, wouldn't that make her decision null any ways? Because she marked outside of the box on a legal document? I don't know how it works in the States but in Canada if we make any marks outside of the allocated writing boxes on any legal documents, they are voided and we have to write them out again and this includes check boxes (which also have instructions to mark with an "x")

Comments on Monday's, all I can say is that if someone said what #3 said to me in real life, I would probably punch them in the throat, if I heard #2 I would probably comment if it was instant or not, but #3 is completely "wtf is wrong with you?" but we don't know what context this is being told out of either. Was the guy talking about this at a funeral, a wake, where were they?

Her crossing out the check mark doesn't make sense to me. The main reason being that nobody would cross out a check mark by turning it into an X. The other being forms don't work that way, so to speak.

"Sympathy" wasn't funny to me until I imagined the last panel spoken by Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth.

Great. Way Walker used the device that makes me read things in my head, in Professor Farnsworth's voice. Dammit, even as I type this it's being said in his voice in my head.

Changing a check to an X doesn't even work because as far as I know an X and a check would mean the same thing as far as the state is concerned probably. Just a matter of "There's a mark in the box, that means they're an organ donor."

Ah, now I can change from Professor Farnsworth to Linkara. "THIS COMIC SUCKS!"

Good news, everyone. It appears that reading questionable scientific conjecture in Professor Farnsworth's voice can inject some much needed humour into the conversation.

See, it works so well with 660 because he's already known for being that uncaring, not because he searches for ways to defy the laws of physics. Established Characterisation. Making someone behave unrealistically usually doesn't work unless it's a consistent trait. It doesn't hurt to have an explanation for such behaviours either.

xkcd, on the other hand, seems to be projecting the same flaws across most of the "cast" as if they were commonly occuring behaviours. This seems to stop short at the straight men (the role, not preference) but they're just there to provide a way of saying "See? I'm MOCKING this jerk, not agreeing with him. War/Gangster movies don't glamourise violence, etc.!". The worst part is that most of these flaws are usually deliberate acts, not unintentional as they're portrayed in xkcd.

Who takes things to there literally-worded illogical conclusions on a regular basis? Okay, without purposely trying to be an arse about it (guilty)? Who can be so unserious and whimsical about absolutely everything right up until they start considering their own problems? Who honestly doesn't understand that people read and/or assume someone's intentions from their behaviour?

I'm hearing three answers from the audience over here: Randall, Trolls and Asspies. Hey, do you guys mean the the fakers or us real Aspe- What do you mean there's no such thing as Asperger's? Get the hell out of my studio! Ahem. Like I said, I don't know anyone who acts like that without trying. Then again, I've never met any of those damned Asspies. But I do know plenty of fictional characters that do these kinds of things. Most of them are sitcom characters. Or children. But never the entire cast of a work, and rarely more than two. Does that mean Randall's projecting (not necessarily himself)?

Oh, and that BadWebcomicWiki review is WAY out of date. Pre-400s I presume. Complains about it requiring high level, obscure science knowledge and not catering to less technically-minded readers. Heh. Still got the pretentious nerd-wanking and fake existentialist charges spot on though.

I think Carl's 1st reading is the right one here. The other possible reading I had was that she was trying to preserve herself by keeping the form of her organs intact so that at least a piece of her could continue to exist after her death.

It's obviously the first interpretation, because you only check boxes if you mean 'yes'. Not checking them at all is 'no'. There's no way around it. On ABCDE tests, you don't check A, only to make it an X to null it. Computers don't read it that way.

--"It goes like this: you make a check mark, and then you say "oh, I don't want to do that," so you cross it out. You cross things out by drawing an X."

I think you are projecting your belief that Randy is a moron onto all of his stick figures. Surely there are umpteen better ways to indicate that you have changed your mind about a check mark than by turning it into an X.

I don't believe that Randy is a moron. I believe that there are multiple people who think that it is very clearly a check mark that was crossed out by someone drawing an X, and I don't think it requires a genius or someone who is 'overthinking it' to think that is the case.

Also that's not what 'projecting' is. Projecting is when you feel something unacceptable or undesirable--anger, for instance--and then 'project' that feeling onto someone else. It manifests when people say things like "I'm not angry, YOU'RE angry."

I like how Carl accurately predicted that people would claim that it's obvious and indisputable with different things.

The fact that we don't know:

a.) Whether she's making a check or an Xb.) Whether or not that's relevantc.) Whose driver's license she's markingd.) If she's marking "Yes, X will be an organ donor" or "No, X will not be an organ donor"e.) If she's doing so because she agreed with her dad's Ship of Theseus or because she disagreed with itf.) If she plays with legos in her late teens, or if several years passed between the two rows of the comic

Means that QUITE A LOT of relatively relevant information is either missing, debateable, or inscrutable. Sure, we can be fairly confident that she's marking her own driver's license in order to make herself an organ donor because she agreed with her dad. But since Randall presented so much information so ambiguously, it's frustrating to fill in the blanks and parse it.

Possibly relevant: In Illinois, not sure about the U.S. generally, you're assumed not to be an organ donor unless you explicitly declare yourself one.

I think I know what happened here: Randall meant for it to be Carl's first interpretation, and it was supposed to be a checkmark, but when he started drawing it the first stroke when all the way across the box instead of stopping halfway, and instead of fixing it he made some half-x half-check thing and went "good enough".

I think there's a good reason not to sign one of those organ donation things.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aclS1pGHp8oI know that quoting Python is uncreative, but this is the perfect comic to quote it for.

"1. Munroe’s Law: A person in a geeky argument who can quote xkcd to support his position automatically wins the argument. This law supersedes Godwin, so that even if the quote is about Hitler, the quoter still wins."

If anyone ever uses Munroe's Law on me in an argument, I will kill myself. And when my tainted spirit finds its destination, I will topple the master of that dark place. From my black throne, I will lash together a machine of bone and blood, and fueled by my hatred for them this fear engine will bore a hole between this world and that one.

When it begins, they will hear the sound of children screaming, as though from a great distance. A smoking orb of nothingness will grow above their bed, and from it will emerge a thousand starving crows. As I slip through the widening maw in my new form, they will catch only a glimpse of my radiance before they are incinerated. Then, as tears of bubbling pitch stream down my face, my dark work will begin.

I will open one of my six mouths, and I will sing the song that ends the Earth.

Sometimes I feel a DARK SHAME for consistently enjoying Penny Arcade, even though it has declined over the course of the last few years. I still think that Tycho is very insightful and pleasant to read in his newsposts, and that Gabe's art is very pleasant to look at, and they seem like really nice guys who can laugh at themselves and generally can do a good job cranking out rote material--a skill that their contemporaries and successors never even tried to develop.

I had nothing else to say on this comic or the most recent one(of Monday), but there's so much winning on these last comments I just couldn't be left outside. P has rised a few more points on my Scale of Internet Awesomeness. And yes, I realized what it was from ery early. You can't miss that awesomeness.

Just for nitpicking: organ doning is defined as false by default down here in Brazil, I reckon for reasons related to religion. Also, I adore alliterations.

And finally, a confession: if it wasn't for me finding this blog months ago, I'd probably be thrilled by "Munroe's Law". Seriously, that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard, but it's OH SO NERDY! Even more seriously, any "real" nerd should know what "Authority Argument" means.

Hey this is my first post here, but I just wanted to post a possible interpretation that I haven't seen yet.

As a child the female figure was getting that 'lesson' from what would appear to be a father figure to her. Now, as an adult she is remembering the lesson because it was something that stuck with her. That is, in fact, a lego in her hand as a sort of memento of what that lesson is. She is in fact signing up to be an organ donor. That X in the box does look wierd but I think that is more of a style thing, though I arue that yes the elongation of the upper right hand corner is odd. One would suspect that if there was to be an elongation it would be in the lower left as defined by how most make an X, but perhaps for the sake of argument she starts that line in the lower left?

The lesson here is, as I interpret, that without what defines us we are simply a series of parts in a box. Those parts can continue to be nothing or they can be used to create something else or in the case of organ donation to rebuild something or someone else.

This was for me a thought provoking concept as it is one I had not considered before. The 'humor' I would take from this is the real world application of a LEGO construction. It is by no means direct or incredibly funny but it was at least worthy of obtaining a sort of ironic chuckle from me at least.

Hi Steve, welcome to my blog. I think your interpretation is certainly possible, but if that's what Randall is doing, he did a really bad job drawing it. The most obvious thing would be to put the first two panels in a thought bubble coming out from the girl in the bottom row. Some people might say that is too overt. In that case, some way of showing that the girl in the bottom row is the same as the girl in the top row, but older, would be good. Maybe she is taller - it's hard to tell, because she isn't standing up in the first panel, and anyway, there's no sense of distance. But maybe an "older" hairstyle? I am not sure.

In any case, all of these point to the fact that Randall has a serious problem when it comes to communicating things through visuals.

It's obviously your first impression. If it were the second one, he would have been talking about a completely different philosophical point that...wait, no that wouldn't work. Hmm... Well it matters not. It's funny one way, and thought provoking the other. Great comic!

What the hell is this?

Welcome. This is a website called XKCD SUCKS which is about the webcomic xkcd and why we think it sucks. My name is Carl and I used to write about it all the time, then I stopped because I went insane, and now other people write about it all the time. I forget their names. The posts still seem to be coming regularly, but many of the structural elements - like all the stuff in this lefthand pane - are a bit outdated. What can I say? Insane, etc.

I started this site because it had been clear to me for a while that xkcd is no longer a great webcomic (though it once was). Alas, many of its fans are too caught up in the faux-nerd culture that xkcd is a part of, and can't bring themselves to admit that the comic, at this point, is terrible. While I still like a new comic on occasion, I feel that more and more of them need the Iron Finger of Mockery knowingly pointed at them. This used to be called "XKCD: Overrated", but then it fell from just being overrated to being just horrible. Thus, xkcd sucks.

Here is a comic about me that Ann made. It is my favorite thing in the world.

Frequently Asked Questions

Divided into two convenient categories, based on whether you think this website

Rob's Rants

When he's not flipping a shit over prescriptivist and descriptivist uses of language, xkcdsucks' very own Rob likes writing long blocks of text about specific subjects. Here are some of his excellent refutations of common responses to this site. Think of them as a sort of in-depth FAQ, for people inclined to disagree with this site.